- Joined
- Feb 3, 2023
I didn't say this, I didn't even infer it. Do you not understand how quotes work?
Russian Special Military Operation in the Ukraine - Mark IV: The Partitioning of Discussion
- Thread starter Catherine the Great
- Start date
-
🐕 I am attempting to get the site runnning as fast as possible. If you are experiencing slow page load times, please report it.
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2024
That is 12% degradation on 10% overprovisioning of battery, should be more than 20% realistically.
It is just easier to move into a house with PV.
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2022
When looking at past wars where one side had either a overwhelming technological or doctrinal advantage it is easy to get confused as to how the loser themselves didn't already have them.
Indian sultnates getting absolutely demolished by superior British tactics, Chinese forces ramming themselves into European style fortresses yet never creating them, cannons taking centuries to disseminate West, etc. Logically you would think they would work one time before everyone in the region also adopted them.
I guess this at least somewhat clears it up. The reasoning behind it may be drastically different but at least we now have a case study for how a major power can straggle behind military developments even in a age when they can watch it in real time.
Butterschmalz
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 23, 2022
Anything to survive buddy. I know what you mean but consumerism is not the worst thing to end up with. Especially if you got a family that you care about. Its more important to love your own people than to hate the other guys.
Talking as a Canadian resident here: Canada will always be on the American leash. If they say jump we ask how high. Sounds super bad doesnt it. What do we get in return: Security and access to one of the biggest markets in the world. But without American duties like financing two wars at the same time (Ukraine/Gaza): just or unjust and all their domestic inner conflicts.
Security and the access to a big market would also be in the interest of Ukrainians which means being friendly with Russians. Cant be that hard since both kinda are the same and they can communicate in the same language. I guess they made the wrong choice. Gotta know your place and find your spot.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2023
It's more like they tell us to jump and by how much, and then we go on and on about how we arent going to do it and then that us actually jumping was always our idea from the start.
warhammerautist
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- May 1, 2024
LordOfZhbagva
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2024
Usually for a large mixture of factors. It's easy to just say "oriental despots", "dumb niggers" or "streetshitting jeets", yet the reasons usually extend into systemic military failings, economic shortcomings or fundamentally different societal organization. The opium war, for an example, saw the Chinese quickly churning out cannons of essentially same potential as the British, yet the Manchu officers didn't have developed doctrines or training to use them well, so it didn't change the battlefield.
Most of the Indian failings come due to the inability of their various states to mobilize the resources at their disposal, but also due to inferior weapons. I will mention the kingdom of Mysore which won a sizable war against the Bri'ish, stalemated them on the second go around and managed to survive two more wars against them, in large part thanks to imitating the French state and military model and managing to become self-sufficient in gunpowder, rifle and cannon production thanks to bringing in foreign (mainly French) experts. There was a very real potential that Mysore would actually have remained a independent, large and strong state on the southern tip of the Indian peninsula (and India would probably have been better off for it).
The European fortresses never really demonstrated themselves as exceptionally useful in China. Albazin did not hold out against the Qing forces, while Koxinga, a ruler of a pirate/merchant coalition, managed to take over Fort Zeelandia with only a small segment of his army committed to the offensive. The Qing really cannot be faulted for their "failure" for not adopting fortifications that have not proven themselves superior (or needed) in China, which was a very different state than any European one, in large part thanks to the millennia long Chinese practice of demilitarizing the massive interior regions of China, which really negated the need for any internal policing fortresses.
The issue isn't merely getting cannons. The issue is mobilizing state resources and the population to wage wars. Wars, with the development of technology invariably become more intensive on the manpower and resource of a state and as a result, ever more capable state mechanisms of extracting wealth and manpower from its population and its production sector are needed to make the state work. See the USSR in WW2 as an example of this, a great power with the highest mobilization rate and most state control over its industrial sector allowed it to bounce back and contribute the most in the war despite the abysmal starting year. Take the CPC in China, that effectively exploited the rural areas under its control through effective land redistribution, take the Germans in early WW2, who exerted more control over their state and its components than their local enemies. Take the Romans, who managed their large conquests of Europe, Asia and Africa thanks to a system of organized conscription early on to form their republican legions and then later used a complex system of requisitions and taxation to fund their professional legions. Take the Ottomans, the Mongols, the various African insurgencies, etc, etc, etc... The issue isn't the cannons or the cheap drones. The issue is that the society and the state themselves are inferior. Adoption of more advanced technological systems is a reflection of this failing, rather than a failing itself. This is currently the failing of the US, which we'll see how the US will deal with.